December 15, 2009

As a heads up this particular post is probably of interest to a fairly narrow audience. I have enjoyed reading some of Rodney Stark's work and I have talked to a number of fellow pastors who have also appreciated his work and have seen him quoted favorably in several places.

So I just thought I would pass something along to all of you who read Stark. C. John Sommerville has a few brief comments you might find helpful in the May 2009 issue of a periodical called Reconsiderations. Reconsiderations is put out by the Christian Study Center of Gainesville (a.k.a. the center of the intellectual and athletic universe). The link is to a .pdf file and the article by Sommerville starts on page 6. Here's the article:

Stark is a sociologist and he comes at Christian history using the tools of sociology. Although Sommerville says he has a secure place in "high-brow" culture, his book Rise of Christianity is one that can be appreciated by non-specialists and non-sociologists. Just realize that he is not writing as a theologian or even as a devout believer. But he does write as one who is sympathetic to Christianity and that article by Sommerville may help you understand his perspective and his sympathies. I just noticed that Stark has a new book on the Crusades - hmm, sounds interesting.

Also, just a word about C. John Sommerville. Aside from the fact that he taught for years at the premier learning institution in America, he has written one of my definite top 10, all time favorite books. It is called How the News Makes us Dumb. I can't recommend that book highly enough, in fact I beg you, please, please, please, please, please read that book before you watch another news broadcast, read a paper or tell someone about something you read or heard on the news. His argument is not what you might think. The news is not bad because it is biased or because the journalists themselves are incompetent per se. The news is destructive to wisdom because it is daily. Again, I can't recommend that book too highly.

October 05, 2009

I started reading/listening to Augustine's City of God today - we'll see how far I go with it as it is a daunting book to read.

At the beginning, in the preface, Augustine makes the following comment about the earthly city.

we must speak also of the earthly city, which, though it be mistress of the nations, is itself ruled by its lust of rule.

I've got a discussion here of power in human relationships and I make the following reference to Genesis 3:16 which I believe offers a pretty good paradigm for understanding the dynamics involved in relational breakdown, on a large and small scale.

5. The first discussion of the use of power in a human to human sense is in Genesis 3:16, where Eve is told:

Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you.

In
this passage the "desire" which Eve will have for her husband is a
desire to control. The word for "desire" here is used in Genesis 4:7 of
sin's desire to "have" Cain. This desire is not a benevolent desire, it
is the original "will to power." So, Eve will desire to control her
husband and the husband will "rule" over her. Again, because this is in
the context of the fall, it is difficult to see this desire to rule on
the part of the man as being a benevolent desire. It seems to be more
of a desire to conquer the woman.

Again, my point is not that the exercise of power in human
relationships is always in and of itself sinful. But we must keep in
mind that the fall introduced a kind of desire for power that is
tyrannical and despotic by nature.

Augustine seems to back this up, and this offers all kinds of implications for life, particularly our public life. If Augustine is correct then the rules of the game for the world center around a lust for rule. As such, when Christians try to influence the powers and authorities of our world, at least those on a human scale, we've got to realize they play by a set of rules that are foreign to the Christian (i.e. the Christian's identity is that of servant, not ruler Phil. 2:5ff). We have to be careful to not think we can adopt their presuppositions, their ways and their "rules of the game," and then think we'll be able to persuade them to change all of that. We also have to understand that if we are faithful to our own presuppositions, ways and "rules of the game" we'll be largely unintelligible to them.

October 03, 2009

There has been an exchange going on between Joe Carter and a few other blogs and commenters on the present state of conservatism centered around this post. I'd encourage all of you to read that for some good thoughts on the state of modern conservatism, but for now I'd call your attention to this comment on the trouble with inflammatory rhetoric. This is a good caution/warning for all who are passionate about their cause, whether it be a spiritual, ecclesiastical, political or any other cause:

A more formal, serious tone is (at least in my opinion) appropriate for
serious matters. Accusations may be emotionally satisfying to us when
we are troubled and even frightened with the way matters of state are
tending but violent speech can have very serious, unintended
consequences. The greater the danger, the more we need clear thinking,
a “steady hand at the helm”. A passage from St. Bernard of Clairvaux
makes an impression: “When the battle is at hand … They think not of
glory and seek to be formidable rather than flamboyant. At the same
time, they are not quarrelsome, rash, or unduly hasty, but soberly,
prudently and providently drawn up into orderly ranks, as we read of
the fathers. Indeed the true Israelite is a man of peace, even when he
goes forth to battle.” If there are times when inflammatory rhetoric presents no great danger,
that time is not now. Setting one unsettled mind afire is all that it
takes; that spark can be the beginning of a conflagration.

March 21, 2009

Here's an interesting story I found while goofing off on a Saturday, catching up on Gator News. Although it's a story that works in my favor as a Gator Fan, it's an interesting illustration of how the news media works.

For years now I've been pretty ambivalent about the news. I can't remember the last time I watched a news program on TV and I only read the newspaper in the fall on Sundays to catch up on Saturday's football scores. Check that, I sometimes read the newspapers in the fall, but usually I just go over the SI and ESPN sites and the GatorSports site and that's enough. For news I'll check Drudge usually once a day and on a day when I am intensely interested in the news of the day I may lightly scan an article or two they link to. And I have a few blogs that keep up with the news that I read from time to time so I'm not completely ignorant of the news. In fact, just last week I heard there was an election last year, and did you know we have a new President?

Now for those of you who find my lack of interest in the news heretical never fear, I get all kinds of email forwards that keep me informed of the conspiracy or EOTWAWKI scenario dujour so it's not like I'm completely out of the loop.

With all of that, any guilt I ever felt about not keeping on top of the news was relieved when I read c. John Sommerville's book "How the News Makes Us Dumb." In it he makes what to me is a persuasive case that the problem with the news media is not bias or incompetence on the part of the news organizations or news personnel themselves, it is the nature of the media itself. The problem with news is it's daily-ness. Because the news business is daily, the #1 goal of news media is to make you come back tomorrow. Therefore, they have to focus on the sensational, they are not able to discern the significant. In other words the nature of the beast itself prevents the news media from being a good source of . . . well . . . the news.

So, I'm reading today about my beloved Gators (which is always significant and newsworthy!) and I come across this article in the Orlando Slantinel about why newspapers in Florida are giving more coverage to the Florida Gators than the FSWHO Seminoles. And while it seems self-evident to me that no one with a sound mind could have any interest in knowing what happens to the nolies I was intrigued to find out why newspapers in Florida are covering the Gators more than other schools in Florida.

The bottom line - it's readership and advertising. While it's true that the Gators have been more newsworthy in recent years than any other athletic team on the planet, it is interesting to me why the nolies and other teams aren't getting the coverage. Here's the writer:

I regret to inform you that the debate is over. Newspapers undeniably prefer the Gators, though not for the reasons persecuted fans think.

It's not an orange-and-blue thing, It's a green thing.

Money is becoming scarce in the newspaper business.

And:

That's not to toot our horn. If the boss is ever ordered to choose between covering FSU and Florida, he'd pick the Gators.

Florida gets more readers, more Web hits and more reaction, and generates more advertising. Seminoles fans don't want to hear it. It's not fair, but a lot of things aren't fair in this scenario. Like three FSU beat writers being laid off, one just last week.

Sports fans say if only newspapers would have covered their favorite teams better, circulation wouldn't have dropped. Just as conservatives say if newspapers weren't so liberal, they wouldn't be in this fix.

The biggest reason is the billions of advertising dollars disappearing into the Internet. Things like Craigslist aren't Republican, Democrat, Seminole or Gator. The newspaper business model broke, and FSU picked a bad time to founder.

While it's been Emerald Bowl material, Florida has won two football and two basketball national championships. Which program would you cover?

Again, while I don't want anyone to waste any of few precious moments we have on this earth reading about nolies, I do think this illustrates Sommerville's points - that the goal of news is not to report the news, it is to generate readership. Interestingly enough, Sommerville was a prof at the U of F. But because of this one ought not to think they are getting news of significance from the news, and we ought to be aware that we are being fed what will bring more readers, not what is necessarily significant.

Sommerville's alternative is that we ought to take the time we devote to reading newspapers and watching news programs to reading books. We need to read history and philosophy, and I would add theology, and things like that which give us a larger view of the world and give us the tools which will enable us to rightly interpret the events of our day.

So the next question is, why are you wasting your precious time reading my blog when you could be reading something significant like philosophy, history, or theology, or the latest on the Florida Gators.

November 05, 2008

Today's news from the Onion. Thanks to my friend and fellow pastor Paul Warren for keeping me in the news loop on this.

WASHINGTON—African-American man Barack Obama, 47, was given the least-desirable
job in the entire country Tuesday when he was elected president of the United
States of America.

And . . .

The job comes with such intense scrutiny and so certain a guarantee of failure
that only one other person even bothered applying for it. Said scholar and
activist Mark L. Denton, "It just goes to show you that, in this country, a
black man still can't catch a break."

Be sure to vote this Tuesday. But wait until Sunday morning at church
to catch the election results. Whichever candidate wins, look for the
look on your friends’ faces. In too many cases, it will tell you the
New Deal beat the New Covenant.

Speaking of the fragile fabric of morality and markets that our nation was founded upon, Metzger says:

The threads were further ripped in the Roaring Twenties. A lot of
things soared, including the stock market, drug abuse, divorce rates,
and crime syndicates in major cities (did you think I was describing
2008 or the 1920s?). When the market crashed in 1929, the problem was
how to create or reinforce social consensus where little or none could
be generated by institutions that formerly performed this role – i.e.,
the church. Nature abhors a vacuum, so the New Deal rushed into the
space vacated by the New Covenant. This is why the New Deal is
considered the most important development of the last century in
American political culture. It wasn’t so much FDR and the Democrats –
the New Deal made politics the end-all of nearly everything – for every party.

The New Deal shifted the solutions to problems over to politics. It
said if we could get the right politicians in office and the right laws
passed, all would be well. This was a new fabric of politicization
where business interests, higher education, philanthropy, art, science,
and minorities all sought legitimacy through the rights conferred by
the state.

He goes on:

It’s sad to say, but Christians on the Right and Left have been sucked
into the New Deal vortex. They’re seeking to legitimatize Christianity
in the public square through political action. . . Politicized parishioners measure success by the number of
politicians visiting their church or pastors offering prayers to open
congressional sessions. The hope these Christians place in politics is
quite astonishing.

And here's how you can tell who won the election:

Depending on which church you attend, you’ll see one of three faces
– conquest, contempt, or confidence. In one church, they’ll crow about
their conquest because their candidate won. In another church, they’ll grimace, grind their teeth, and begin plotting revenge because their candidate lost. But in both churches, the bigger winner is the New Deal because these are the faces of politicized people.

If you see confident expressions, regardless of which candidate wins, you’re looking at a New Covenant Christian.

Here's post #2 on politics during this brief window of time where I am allowing myself to post on politics for a few hours, given that it's election eve and all.

This one comes from my good buddy Will Hinton. I'm planning on voting for McCain, but I'm not voting for McCain because I have bought into the demonization of Obama that comes from so many conservative outlets.

As a somewhat conservative Christian, I am particularly disgusted by the
manner in which Christians have become hysterical in their desire to
smear Obama in every way possible. I have said many times during this
campaign, one does not have to make Obama out to be the anti-Christ to
not vote for him. Same goes for McCain. So what are Christians saying
to convince others to NOT vote for Obama?

After surveying some of the reasons Christians are saying not to vote for Obama, Will says:

The shame of all these ridiculous claims is that one can find very
valid reasons to NOT vote for Obama. His doctrinaire position on
abortion, his record that shows few instances of bucking the party line
and working in a bipartisan manner, or his tendency to believe that the
federal government can solve the current economic problems are reasons
enough for me. Yet I don't recall these positions being part of
orthodox Christian doctrine.

Since it's election eve I'll lift my self-imposed ban on on political posting for a few hours here.

First up, here's an excerpt from a post by Steve Walker at the Gate:

On July 12, 2008, in an interview with David Wheaton,
Dr. John MacArthur, made some extraordinary statements regarding
Christian involvement in the political process. David Wheaton asked:
“Are you concerned about the next president of the United States, John
MacArthur, as far as what direction he’s going to take the country?”

Dr. MacArthur replied:

“I’m not concerned about that for 5 seconds.
It has nothing to do with the kingdom of God — absolutely nothing to do
with it. The Lord will build his Church; I’m concerned about his
Church. I’m concerned about the name of Christ, the gospel, the glory
of God, the purity of the Church, the clarity of the teaching of the
word of God. Jesus said it as clearly as it could be said when he said
to Pilate, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this
world, my servants would fight.’ His kingdom has nothing to do with
this world. You could argue that the Roman power was oppressive, and
even deadly, as indicated in Luke 13 when Pilate’s men went in and
sliced up the Jews who were worshiping in the Temple. You can make the
case that Jesus should have done something to obliterate slavery, or
overturn Roman oppression, and free the people of Israel. It has
nothing to do with that — ‘My kingdom has nothing to do with that. My
kingdom is not of this world.’

Obviously, as a human being, I would like to see someone who is
moral; I’d like to see someone who is a Christian have an opportunity
to influence things from a viewpoint of Christianity. But this has
nothing whatsoever to do with the advance of the kingdom of God. I am
much more concerned about the kingdom that is not of this world than
the kingdom that is America.”

I'll offer one little quibble while saying I'm wholeheartedly behind this quote. I think he overstates the case when he says this has nothing to do with the kingdom of God. I think if we believe in the sovereignty of God and if we follow Kuyper's maxim that there is not one square inch of all creation over which Christ does not claim "this is mine," then we have to say that everything (including politics) has something to do with the kingdom of God.

That quibble aside - he is right on. We vastly overestimate the importance of politicians and political systems to God. The church is where the action is, not the nation-state.

October 02, 2008

The last thing we will consider is altering our own
behavior—because, surely, someone else is at fault. The Oil Companies,
the Saudis, Dick Cheney—anyone but me. As has been described by Jason
Peters, editor of a fine volume on Berry, it’s like heavy traffic.
Heavy traffic is always other people. When you say “traffic was
terrible,” you’re never talking about yourself.

Wendell Berry
asks us to understand how we are a cause of the terrible traffic we
complain about. His basic argument is that we must become more
thoughtful about what we are doing. We must seek to understand the ways
in which we are ourselves complicit in bad work, and seek to avoid that
complicity where possible and, better still, to do good work instead.
He does not advise withdrawal from the world, but full and active
engagement in it. He fully acknowledges that we are technological
creatures: to survive and thrive we must use nature. But again, “we
must know both how to use and how to care for what we use.”

I'm going to have to be careful here before I start throwing stones, since this is the story of my life. But let me give a couple of examples of how I have seen this and even been party to it.

"We're having trouble in our marriage," not "I'm nagging him to death," or "I'm a lazy slob who expects her to wait on me hand and foot."

"We're having financial trouble," not "you know, maybe it wasn't such a good idea for me to buy that boat after all."

"Our church has problems," not "I and my fellow church members come to church with a consumeristic mindset every Sunday and expect to have it our way," or "my own leadership failures have led to lots of the problems we are now experiencing."